remanded H-1B Case: Data Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 21482016 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUL. 28, 2022 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "data analyst" under the H-lB 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. 
employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both: (a) the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (b) the attainment 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite 
for entry into the position. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the position is a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits new evidence 
and contends that the petition should be approved. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review this 
matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 
review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision. 
We conclude that a remand is warranted in this case because the new evidence the Petitioner submits 
on appeal appears material to its claim that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. Since this 
new evidence was not before the Director when she made her determination that the position is not a 
specialty occupation, we will remand the matter so that the Director may consider it in the first 
instance. Specifically, the Director may wish to consider whether the new evidence, and in particular 
the expert opinion, together with the other evidence submitted establishes, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation). 
As the Director conducts her review, she may also wish to examine the Petitioner's offer of 
employment letter , which appears to function as a contractual agreement between the Petitioner and 
the Beneficiary, delineating the terms of the Beneficiary's employment. Specifically, she may wish 
to consider whether paragraph 10 of that letter improperly places responsibility on the Beneficiary for 
payment of the Petitioner's H-lB fees. 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to consider the new evidence and enter a 
new decision. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new 
determination and any other issue. We express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this 
case on remand. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2